Feedback on the new KVR rules and guidelines on the "client evaluation system"
Source: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 5#p5915525
This is a split from the MC05 thread.
Please share your thoughts.
Well... in a real C2B situation, what we really try to emulate with this route now, you pretty much go the same route:Fritze wrote:In the real client - mixer situation it's possible to talk to the client about what she/he likes.
While I enjoy these competitions for the sheer mixing of diverse material
I miss the direct contact to the client to find out what she/he really wants.
The Song Provider (client) "provides" you with a track and ideally a demo mix, then writes down what he/she/they want to see in this mix. As detailed as possible, or as scarce as they like. They then trust the participant (the business/the audio engineer) to get the best out of it.
This is the closest you can get to a direct contact of the client - and you need to pay attention.
It's not frustrating at all, it's actually fairer than before.Fritze wrote:So getting disqualified after working on the mix with the sparse start info
and then getting different decision criteria after having finished the mix
is frustrating for the "I want to win" component of a competition.
Previous MC's wen't by the "win by popular vote" rule, which clearly didn't work as the song provider (the client) had no final word in it. So we actually switched up the system with MC04 indeed, however with a warning in the MC03 thread during the submission period. We actually also massively upped the introduction thread with "additional rules" set by the song provider, and an own paragraph what the "client" wants to see as focus on the mix, as people did whatever they felt like with the first two challenges. So, even closer to a real life scenario.
MC04 on the other hand omitted the so called "Round 2" and the feedback like Photonic did with MC05. But what you describe and slightly criticize here, is the closest we can get to a regular C2B arrangement. Only that you don't win a studio tool in this case, but you might gain a new client and you get paid - if the client decides if you get the deal or not.
In the last years I'm doing this, I had clients (especially new ones, or those that didn't know my style of work yet) that contacted me, I invested time and efforts and could still hear "don't like it - sorry, but thanks for your time". Deal over, short and simple.
The same is happening here: a client might look for several mixers (since he/she/they isn't/aren't sure of a certain sound yet), sends out stuff to get an idea of the sound they might provide, and then agree on the mix or not.
It's just how this works - handling clients is always a challenge.
Only in this case, with a different skin.
To be honest, we changed the rules/guidelines several times at this point. Always after feedback from the users, every time with focus on more fairness and objectivity. The current concept (mix challenge initiators start the thread, client adds to the "core rules", client decided who goes on the winners podium) can't get any closer to the reality.Fritze wrote:There are various ways to solve this prob for such a competition situation. Please discuss!
And aside from the resubmission and feedback thing for the learning process (so that everyone can benefit of it), it's actually like a regular 08/15 challenge/competition/contest on music planet internet as well.
That the change happened mid MC04 was unlucky indeed. But we announced it several times, talked to the song providers about this, and both (MC04 and MC05) agreed to this risky move. It turned out fairly well IMO, a lot of known faces came back, and we even got new ones.
Unless I'm understanding you wrong - I tend to do that lately.